The weekend means two things: The hangover breakfast and hours spent on social media. However you should probably think before you post. As recent events show that being careless on social media can leave you unemployed, arrested or even dead.


Location, Location, Location.

Two IS soldiers one with a balaclava. Tagline "no filter"

A social media fail led to US forces bombing the location of IS soldiers

We all love a good selfie. Especially when we’re in a glamorous location. But if you are a member of a rebel terrorist group, it might be best to stay off Twitter.

This week the location of an Islamic State hideout was busted after an IS fighter decided to post a selfie.

US spies recognised the background and within 24 hours they had bombed the area.

If alive, the IS fighter probably hasn’t had any new follower requests.



Similarly, a Russian soldier gave the game away when he posted on Instagram from Ukraine. You can find out all about the Russia/Ukraine saga right here, but in a nutshell Russia was NOT supposed to be in Ukraine. They’d even denied they had soldiers in the country.

Social Media Fail by Alexander Sotkin revealed that he was in Ukraine with Russian soldiers

The social media fail which revealed Russian soldiers might be somewhere they shouldn’t


VICE news even used social media to track down Russian soldiers;


Come Fly With Me

Everyone loves a good prank. Pretend to be someone else and wind them up. Classic banter. A fourteen year old girl decided to take it to a whole new level and tweeted a threat to an airline as a joke.

As you can imagine this very quickly backfired.

Teenage girl tweets an airline pretending to be a terrorist. They pass on her details to the FBI: Social Media Fail

Airline Fail: Don’t pretend to be a terrorist


Don’t worry though, she had things covered.


Social Media Fail - the girl who tweeted pretending to be a terrorist then blocked the FBI

Good plan.

However, this didn’t stop her from being arrested. Nice try though.


Hackers gonna hack

Hacker Chris Roberts commits a Social Media Fail and was arrested. His tweet looked like he was going to hack into the WIFI of a plane

Chris Roberts was about to get hacked off

Bragging about your skills is never cool. But if your skill is hacking… maybe keep it on the down low. Computer expert Chris Robert’s wasn’t expecting the response he got when he posted this tweet to the right:

Yeah, we don’t really understand it either. But apparently it refers to a weakness in the airplane WI-FI system which could allow a hacker to take over the flight controls.

It’s like every plane disaster movie you’ve ever seen rolled into one.

The US authorities didn’t take kindly to this and arrested Roberts as soon as he landed. Then confiscated his laptop.

Oh, and if you want the low down on hacking you can read our guide. You’re like totally welcome.


Funeral = Not A Photo-Op


David Cameron's Social Media Fail - getting a selfie with Barack Obama and the Prime Minister of Denmark

“Did you get my good side?”

It was all going so well for David Cameron. Leader of the Conservative party, then Prime Minister, he was finally invited to one of the biggest public events in history: Nelson Mandela’s funeral. What could possibly go wrong?


What better way to show your respect to a dead world leader than selfie-ing up with US President Barack Obama and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt?


David Cameron's Social Media Fail - getting a selfie with Barack Obama and the Prime Minister of Denmark

Say Cheese!



The world didn’t take too well to this social media fail and Cameron later tried to save face by suggesting the photo be auctioned off to charity.

Bidding starts at 1p, any takers?

Don’t think President Obama got off the hook, however. Just look at the frown on his wife’s face. He’s in big trouble.





David Cameron also took flak after the Downing Street official Facebook page changed its profile picture to an image of the prime minister wearing a Remembrance Day poppy. Poppies are worn to honour those who gave their lives in war and conflict.

David Cameron's social media fail with a poppy photo-shopped onto an existing image

Spot the difference

The problem? Turns out the poppy was actually photo-shopped onto an existing image. Awkward!


By-Election Bye Bye


Emily Thornberry MP's tweet about Rochester features a white van and three England flags.

A political social media fail led to the resignation of Emily Thornberry

It’s not just the Prime Minister who found out that Politics and Social Media fails really don’t mix. Labour MP Emily Thornberry lost her job in the Shadow Cabinet for tweeting this picture of a white van and some England flags.

Thornberry had travelled up to support the Labour party in a by-election. (What is this I hear you say? Take a look at The By-Election: Decoded)

Residents of Rochester were furious at the tweet and many thought Thornberry was making a snooty comment about the working classes.

Then a “helpful” journalist decided to point out it wasn’t the first time she had tweeted about England flags.


Maybe she just really likes flags. Maybe.


Queen Elizabeth II is (not) DEAD

Yeah, OK, maybe not. But BBC journalist Ahmen Khawaja decided to send a tweet saying exactly that.

Tween From Ahmen Khawaja stating that Queen Elizabeth II is dead

Killing a royal is the ultimate Social Media Fail

Turns out the BBC was just running a rehearsal to work out how they would cover an event such as the Queen’s death. Not weird at all. The rehearsal coincided with Queenie’s annual medical check up.

Khawaja’s version of events; she got pranked. #likelystory


Learnings: Social Media Fails can be fun.

If you take fun to mean “deadly dangerous”.

Could Instagramming your brunch lead to you being arrested? More importantly  – is anyone actually using Pinterest? Answers in 140 characters or less.


Subscribe to our newsletter and let us do the explaining. Also Like and Follow for regular decoded news.

The Consent Class Debate Explained

A Warwick Uni student has divided opinion by standing up against sexual consent workshops in universities, describing his invitation to attend the NUS-led classes as “a massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face.” He posted a picture of himself in his article in The Tab holding a sign which read “This Is Not What A Rapist Looks Like”. The consent class organiser then posted a response, also in The Tab, saying that she’s not sorry her workshop made this writer feel uncomfortable because in truth, that is what a rapist looks like.


George Lawlor and Josie Throup holding signs

Faintly Written Sign Wars


Some reckon this guy is awesome for standing up and saying what a lot of people were thinking. Others are properly pissed off, saying that he clearly does not get how rape culture and consent actually work.


Sure, a lot of people think they know how rape culture and consent work – but researching for this story we found it’s a crazy twisty debate. This student-tabloid-faintly-written-signs-frenzy has shown how worried and confused we are about these issues. We knew people were worried about “rape culture”, but now it’s emerging that some people are worried about “consent culture” too.   


Scenes of Reason like things simple. So that’s what we did.


Consent and Rape Culture? Explain It to Me Like I’m Seven


Nothing explains consent better than this video about tea. The making them drink tea bit is the rape bit. Rape is sex without consent.



The idea of rape culture is simple. This Buzzfeed article does a great job. This video gives it to you straight.



In a nutshell, rape culture is everything from the images we see and the songs we hear to the media portrayal of rape which all combine to make us think that rape is only something that happens at knife point in a dark alley, and that all other forms of unwanted sex are the fault of the victim by ‘asking for it’, being drunk or being overtly sexually attractive.  


It means accepting violent sexualised images of women as the norm. Rape culture makes it seem like having sex with someone who hasn’t given you a resounding, enthusiastic ‘yes’ is not doing anything wrong.


The Consent Class Debate: One idea at a time


A lot of sticky issues have been brought up in this debate. We’ve broken down what was said by each side to take you through it one idea at a time.


#1 There seems to be confusion over what a rapist looks like


Let’s start with the picture George Lawlor posted alongside his article opposing the NUS consent classes. It reads “This Is Not What A Rapist Looks Like”. That’s nowhere near the whole point he was making, but let’s stick to this one sentence for now.


George Lawlor holding a sign saying "This Is Not What A Rapist Looks Like"

This was the picture accompanying his article

#2 There’s no single profile for a ‘rapist’ – it’s often someone known to the victim


Josie Throup, the consent class organiser, responded to this picture saying “the truth is, it is” what a rapist looks like.

She told the BBC: “Obviously, I’m not suggesting for one minute this guy is a rapist. But 80% of rape survivors know their attacker.

“So when you post a picture and say ‘this is not what a rapist looks like’ you’re wrong.

“A rapist looks like someone on your course, someone you work with, a friend, a neighbour, a date.

“Suggesting a rapist does not look like an ordinary man or woman – that’s perpetuating the myth that rapists are strangers lurking in dark alleys.”

What is often forgotten (like we forgot until a reader kindly pointed it out to us!) is that men can also be victims of rape. There’s really no single profile of what a rapist looks like.


#3 It’s insulting to assume people don’t understand consent


George Lawlor now sees the wording on his sign as “probably a faux pas on my part”, recognising that of course someone who looks like him could be a rapist – anyone could be a rapist.

He explains what he really wanted to say: “It’s not about gender, class or ethnicity. It’s was about me, personally, being offended, as a human being and an individual.”

Why was he offended? In his article, he explained: “I already know what is and what isn’t consent. I also know about those more nuanced situations where consent isn’t immediately obvious as any decent, empathetic human being does. Yes means yes, no means no. It’s really that simple. You’d think Russell Group university students would get that much, but apparently the consent teachers don’t have as high a regard for their peers as I do.”

Russell Group means a specific bunch of universities, btw. So his point is that it’s an insult to assume that people with brains enough to get into uni need to be taught about consent. It’s just not good manners to point at someone and say you probably need to know more about consent.


#4 The numbers of women being assaulted suggest not enough people do understand consent


Josie Throup responded: “If, as this writer claims “Russell group students” understand the nuances of consent, how do we explain the fact that one in seven women students will be raped or sexually assaulted during their time at university? This epidemic is going unseen and un-talked about.”

That 1 in 7 statistic is taken from an NUS report based on a survey of over 2,000 woman university students. We so rarely get to bust out our stats knowledge at Scenes of Reason that we don’t mind telling you now that a survey involving upwards of 1,000 participants, so long as those participants were selected fairly, is likely to produce pretty valid results.

It seems fair enough that George Lawlor feels he doesn’t need to be taught not to rape. Most of us probably feel that way about ourselves and our friends.

This is partly down to the “dark alley myth” we talked about in #2 – we don’t tend to think about rape as something that happens between people who know each other, even though that is the case most of the time.

It’s also because different kinds of unwanted sexual behaviour, including women forcing men to have sex with them, are often not associated with the word “rape”. The law isn’t even clear on this front! Sometimes both people involved are unsure whether what happened was consensual or ‘counts’ as rape. Some are calling this grey rape, and is what we should be worried about more than stranger danger.



You wouldn’t think there was a problem from talking to your friends. Often you can’t tell there’s a problem until you look at the bigger picture. That’s why statistics can be so important.

It’s natural to feel offended by the implication that you personally need to understand more about consent. But what this 1 in 7 statistic tells us is that more people – both men and women – clearly do need to understand more about consent, and the way rape is talked about today means that we may understand even less than we think.


#5 It’s NOT actually as simple as “yes means yes” and “no means no”


Lawlor reckoned he had this “no means no” version of consent down, and that’s why he was offended by the suggestion that he couldn’t get his head around something so simple.

People who run the I Heart Consent workshop, like Josie Throup, reckon this understanding isn’t good enough though: “…many people think it’s as simple as “Yes means yes” and “No means no” when our workshops teach there’s a spectrum of misunderstandings in between, and consent can only be an enthusiastic yes.”





Consent workshops aren’t about teaching men not to rape. They also look at rape culture, and how things we might think of as normal or harmless jokes may do serious harm. They also discuss slut shaming and prude shaming. This means respecting people’s choices whatever they are, so long as they’re their choices.  


#6 Do rape consent classes even work?


Here’s something Lawlor said that made us stop and think for a second: “…do you really think the kind of people who lacks [sic] empathy, respect and human decency to the point where they’d violate someone’s body is really going to turn up to a consent lesson on a university campus? They won’t. The only people who’ll turn up will be people who (surprise, surprise) already know when it’s okay to shag someone. No new information will be taught or learned. It will just be an echo chamber of people pointing out the obvious and others nodding along, thinking the whole time thinking that they’ve saved the world.”

Hhhhmmmm… does teaching consent in this way do much towards solving the problem?


#7 Consent classes empower people to actively counter rape culture


Josie Throup had a good example to show that consent classes are small first step towards making a difference.

It is possibly true that someone likely to commit a rape won’t fancy going to a consent class. BUT, someone who that person respects might attend a class!

Throup explains: “On this campus, Warwick sports teams chant songs about rape. A friend of mine from a club here at Warwick told me about a pre-drinks in which members of his club raised their voices as one in the chant. An exec member who had attended an I Heart Consent workshop last year told them to stop, mindful of survivors in the room who would be traumatised, and perpetrators who would be empowered.”

So teaching consent in workshops begins to create a culture on campus, one which empowers people to actively counter rape culture – embodied by chants about rape.


#8 Some people apparently feel uncomfortable about this new “consent culture”


This less evenly put copycat article by fellow Warwick student Jack Hadfield proclaimed:

I am not a rapist. But I’m in my second week as a university student, and already modern feminism and “consent culture” is trying to pin that label on me.

“I think we all know what goes down at these [consent classes] anyway, don’t we? The male students will be bombarded with stats about “1 in 4 women,” bogus and offensive conspiracy theories about “toxic masculinity,” and suggestions that yes, all men are potential rapists.

Hadfield was being very smart there and parodying the #yesallwomen hashtag. Here’s what that hashtag was meant to mean.


web image saying "the point is not that all men harass women [we realize they dont] the point is that all women have been harassed by men"


The consent class debate explained: Consent classes are not about assuming that all men are rapists. It’s fair enough to feel offended if someone doubts your personal ability to understand consent, but the number of women being sexually assaulted during their time at uni show us that there is a big problem to solve. Everyone – men and women – need to make sure they are down with all the ins and outs of consent.


Fancy digging deeper?


Subscribe to our newsletter and Like and Follow for regular decoded news.

Schools: did yours define your life chances?

Does the school you go to determine your future prospects? If so, is it fair that some have fees and entrance exams and others don’t? Katie Hopkins reckons that without grammar schools the clever kids are being held back. Others say grammar schools mean only the well-off get the opportunity. What about all these private schools and academies?

Someone explain! That’s what Scenes of Reason is here for.

What types of school are there in the UK?


Most people go to State School a.k.a a comprehensive. They are state funded and run by the local authority (council) and stick to the national curriculum. The curriculum is a set of subjects and standards created by the government. It’s all the things students should leave school knowing. Useful stuff like Pythagoras Theorem and don’t put your hand over a Bunsen burner.


This graphic tells you everything you need to know about UK schools.

Infographic explaining differences between UK school types


There are just under 25,000 schools in the UK (including nurseries, special schools and pupil referral units).


Around 80% of these are state funded. Only 10% of schools are private schools which charge fees.


There are only about 250 grammar schools across England and Ireland, and they flat out don’t exist in Scotland. There used to be a lot more but in 1998 Labour banned the creation of new grammar schools.


Social Mobility???


Social mobility ain't easy

Social mobility ain’t easy

The UK schools system is supposed to enable social mobility. This is a person’s movement over time from one class to another. When you hear “social mobility” in the news it’s probably about upwards social mobility. For example, the ability of an individual from the underprivileged classes to move up to the middle classes.


Private schools offer scholarships so smart kids without wealthy parents can attend for free. Grammar schools don’t charge fees but only let the smart kids in – so smart kids of all backgrounds can mix with other smart kids and not be held back by kid who don’t do as well in school.


That’s the theory of how it’s supposed to work.


Thing is, only 7% of the UK population have a private education – but a massive 71% of senior judges have private education (they earn massive dollar).


If everyone had equal opportunities regardless of what school they went to, then less than ten times as many private school kids would end up judges. Just saying.

The majority of the UK don't have private education, but the majority of the cabinet DO.

The majority of the UK don’t have private education, but the half of the cabinet DO.


The same goes for 44% of people on the Sunday Times Rich List, 54% of the top 100 media professionals and 50% of the current Cabinet (prime minister David Cameron’s top team).


Soooo… can we blame the UK school system for these inequalities in later life? This is a debate that has been going on for ages. People seem to get very pissy about it.


The Grammar School Debate


Just to remind you – grammar schools don’t charge you a penny, but they will only take you in if you pass the 11+ which you sit, umm, when you’re 11.


A lot of people reckon it’s totes not fair to sort the smart kids from the dumb ones at such a young age. It’s especially unfair, these people say, because this kind of testing doesn’t actually select the smart kids, it selects the kids whose richer parents were able to afford private tuition. A kid who is just as smart but whose parents lack the time, money or inclination to make sure they pass the 11+ is much less likely to get into a grammar school. Ring a bell anyone?



Then again, seeing as grammar schools tend to have way better academic results than state schools, a bunch of other people reckon that providing bright underprivileged kids with opportunity to go to these schools is worth it, because they will leave with much better prospects for getting a job they wouldn’t have done otherwise.


As columnist Katie Hopkins puts it:


Heavy angry stuff. And we were all caught in the middle of it just a few years ago when we were school age. Does where you are today prove that it’s the wealthy smart kids who get in over the less wealthy and non-tutored bright sparks? Or does it prove that selective schools like grammars offer better opportunities for smart kids, regardless of their backgrounds?



School Findings; there is massive angry debate over what is best for the kids.

There are many individuals who prove that our education does not have to define us. Yet, there would seem to be a more systematic problem with elitism in the UK. Are schools to blame? Or would these people have ended up in the top jobs regardless of the school they went to, because of other things like family wealth and connections?



Subscribe to our newsletter and let us do the explaining. Also Like and Follow for regular decoded news.


We Made The Boring, Not Boring: London Mayor

Voters decided today that it will be Conservative Zac Goldsmith facing Labour’s Sadiq Khan in the election for Mayor of London in 2016.

As of this morning, we knew only two things about Zac Goldsmith.

  1. Goldsmith, Boris Johnson (the man he hopes to succeed as Mayor) and one of our editors have the same messy blonde hair.
  2. Our boss fancies him just a little bit.
Boris Johnson, Zak Goldsmith and SoR Editor

Yes, that is our office.

Put those two things together and you have a pretty awkward work situation on your hands. Moving on.

This wasn’t really good enough – seeing as our job is to break it all down simply so no one else has to. We’ve spent the day enlightening ourselves on why we have a mayor in the first place, what they’ve done for us in the past and what these two fresh mayoral candidates are offering.

Why do we have mayors?

City mayors didn’t exist in the UK, at least not the kind we actually vote for, until the year 2000. We have had Lord Mayors for hundreds of years, and that’s a whole different heap of old-timey crazy.

Since the year 2000, local authorities have been able to ask their residents whether or not they would like to have an elected mayor.

This was part of a decision to devolve powers to local government.

Devolution is a fancy word meaning the transfer of powers and responsibilities from central government in London to local authorities all over the UK – like if your mum put you in charge of some rabbits, and you had to make sure they all had fairly nice hutches but you also had to make sure the rabbits didn’t build any more hutches without your permission, make sure they can all get around to their rabbit-jobs efficiently and don’t commit too many rabbit-crimes.


Did the rabbit thing help?

Basically, a mayor is the head of a local authority who take over government responsibilities like housing and planning, waste and environment management, transport, policing, and economic growth. Did the rabbit thing make that any easier to understand?

If town residents vote in favour of having an elected mayor – which is what happened in London, Greater Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Lewisham, North Tyneside, Salford, Torbay and a bunch of other places – then the next step is to actually elect one.

In London, Labour’s Ken Livingstone was elected mayor for the first eight years, followed by Conservative and love-hateable maniac Boris Johnson for the next eight years.

Changes are a-coming, though. Come 2016 the London Mayor won’t be Ken or Boris but will either be Zak or Sadiq. It sounds like the lads from One Direction are taking over City Hall. There are other candidates from other parties, but TBH nobody expects them to get a look in.

Whoever is elected London Mayor in 2016 can expect a salary similar to a cabinet minister – currently just over £140,000.

What have mayors ever done for us?

The stuff brought in by the last two London mayors is actually stuff Londoners use every day.

Trying to cut down on London’s carbon emissions, Ken Livingstone introduced the congestion charge requiring road users in Central London on week days.

He also introduced the Oyster card and made it possible for same-sex couples to register their partnership. This last initiative paved the way towards UK-wide civil partnerships. Woop.

Boris Johnson banned alcohol on London transport – and there was a big party the night before this law came into effect.

He also completed Ken’s plan of introducing a public cycle hire scheme of 5,000 bikes across London – known as Boris bikes.

Bo-Jo also set up the Outer London Fund, offering a pot of money up to £50m to help create better local high streets.

Who will be our next mayor?

One of these two gents.

Sadiq Khan Portrait

Sadiq Khan MP

Sadiq Khan is Labour MP for Tooting, and won 59% of the vote which took place in tandem with the Labour leader selection. The ballot included full members of the Labour party, registered supporters and affiliated sections (trade unions and the like). Khan managed to win a decisive majority across all three of these sections.

Zac Goldsmith is Conservative MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, and won 70.6% of the vote in a ballot which any Londoner over 18 could vote in for £1.

Zac Goldsmith MP

Zac Goldsmith MP

What issues are they pushing forward?

They’re both ploughing right in with housing and green policies as top of their agenda.

Both are bothered about swollen house prices pushing regular Londoners out of their own city – with this creating a divided and unequal situation like Paris or New York where the rich live in the centre and the poor live at the fringes.

Zac says we need to build more houses and change the way we build them.

Sadiq says we need to make sure Londoners get ‘dibs’ on new houses and backs a ‘London Living Rent’ which would see a certain number of properties in any new build charging rent equal to a third of the average wage in the area.

They’re both serious environmentalists. Both completely oppose the expansion of Heathrow Airport and put improving green spaces and the air Londoners breathe at the top of their if-elected to-do lists.

One thing they disagree on is the building of the Garden Bridge Boris Johnson has planned, which Sadiq Khan reckons is too hefty a cost on the public wallet. Zak reckons it’s OK. Woah guys this is way too much drama.

It’s mega early days, but right now the two candidates don’t seem all that different. At least in the sense that they’re focusing on exactly the same problems.

Yoda meme - patience you must have

We’ll have to see how this plays out.

To be fair, though, seeing as nearly 10,000 die each year in London because of air pollution and mental London house prices being twice the national average, neither candidate could really ignore these things.

The difference will probably be in how they tackle these issues. Again, though, early days.

Spot the difference

There are for sure lots of differences between these two guys. The BIGGEST difference is their backgrounds.

Sadiq Khan, was the son of a bus driver and seamstress, grew up on a south London council estate and slept in a bunk bed at his parents’ house while he trained to be a lawyer.

Zac Goldsmith is son of aristocracy, inherited £200 million from his father and was expelled from Eton for possessing cannabis.

So. Yeah. Different. Let’s see how this plays out.

What now?

Now you’re decoded on the London Mayor and the new candidates you can join the debate. If you don’t live in London, call up a mate who does and lecture them on devolution, cos YOLO. For those who live in London you can vote in the actual mayoral election as long as your are over 18 on the day of the election in May 2016 and can register to vote.

Registering to vote takes about 5 minutes – do it here.

While you’re at it, Subscribe to our newsletter and stay tuned for our breakdown of what was said at conference. Like and Follow for regular decoded news.

5 things we learned from David Cameron’s alleged #piggate scandal

#piggate: a newly published book claims that prime minister David Cameron took part in a rather… unusual university society initiation. Involving a dead pig.



A former donor to the Conservative Party has released a book detailing his feud with current prime minister David Cameron.

The Daily Mail describes the book’s claim that Mr. Cameron once ‘put a private part of his anatomy’ into a dead pig. Yes, you heard us right. This was allegedly part of a university society initiation whilst Cameron was at Oxford.

It’s worth noting at this point that nothing has been proved, though it’s claimed that a picture exists of the… event. David Cameron is infamously coy about his time at university. He was a member of the notorious Bullingdon Club, an all-male exclusive dining club, famous for it’s heavy drinking and the vandalising of restaurants.

So far Number 10 Downing Street are refusing to dignify the claim with a comment. Which is fair enough as, for the second time, there is no proof.

Unfortunately that didn’t stop the internet from going into meltdown. Here’s what we learned:


5 things we learned from #piggate


1) Never underestimate Twitter’s ability to turn something into a joke

Make that several jokes. Several jokes and even more pictures. #piggate quickly went viral, followed by #hameron and #snoutrage.

Here are some of the best posts;


Many recalled an episode of TV show “Black Mirror” where a similar event involving a prime minister and a pig takes place;


Others wondered what Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn would ask at Prime Minister’s Questions;


They mocked David Cameron’s tweet about the Labour Party;

Piggate on Twitter

Hmm looks familiar


Whereas some hammed it up;

#piggate on Twitter



2) TV channels didn’t really know how to react

Despite the online frenzy some UK media outlets didn’t quite know how to report this.

The Drum earned maximum punning points by noting how several media outlets seemed “hamstrung”. He he he.

The Drum noted that though Sky News were “traditionally bolder” than the BBC or ITN the #piggate story was “strikingly omitted from the regular newspaper review.”

BBC trending, the online section of the BBC which reports on trending viral stories is yet to publish a #piggate story. The Independent slammed this as “unnacceptable”.


It is odd that several TV and radio channels are mysteriously forgetting to mention the supposed pig initiation. Is this on the grounds of decency or are they worried of the repercussions?


3) CassetteBoy takes no prisoners.

Talk about working under pressure; within hours of the story breaking CassetteBoy trottered (sorry) out this beauty;

Harsh or not, you have to admit this video is pretty clever.



4) We always laugh about this kind of thing, but then turn morally conscious

Yes, the Twitter jokes were funny but eventually people realised they might be focusing on the wrong topic;



Then there was the issue about how political parties are funded;


People often moan about politics. We say it’s out of touch with reality and that politicians don’t care about ordinary people. Yet today, people were much more likely to share photocopied #piggate images of David Cameron than the news that free school meals may be scrapped.

Just some (not pig) food for thought.


5) Ed Miliband, you’re off the (meat) hook

Before the 2015 general election Ed Miliband was ridiculed for a picture taken of him eating a bacon sandwich.

In fairness, you can see why;

Ed Miliband's piggate moment; eating a bacon sandwich


Ed can now relax knowing that he’ll no longer be the only one in pork-litical history (sorry, we had to) to be remembered for his connection to pigs.

That’ll do, Ed. That’ll do.

For more on stories like #piggate subscribe  to our newsletter. Like and Follow for regular decoded news.